In London, A Tale Of Two Control Freaks

WILLIAM SAFIRE THE NEW YORK TIMES

April 21, 2000|WILLIAM SAFIRE THE NEW YORK TIMES

LONDON — The phrase most often used by friend and foe alike to describe British Prime Minister Tony Blair is "control freak."

He tightly controls the flow of all government information from 10 Downing St., and put in a financial supporter to chair the British Broadcasting Corp. He "devolved" power to Scotland and Wales so as to make most of that leadership loyal to him. He abolished hereditary peers so that power in Britain's conservative House of Lords would shift to his Labor appointees.

Only when he sought to ram through his choice of a sheeplike follower to be mayor of London did voters rebel. An old radical lefty spurned by Blair is running as an independent and may well become London's Jesse Ventura -- a rambunctious rebuke to Blair's new "third way" establishment.

The prime minister, a Clinton political clone, knows that Conservatives behind the feisty William Hague are likely to pick up enough seats to become a formidable minority in next year's elections. Like his American mentor, Blair seeks to bestride the foreign-policy scene to bedazzle voters lest prosperity not continue to obscure unfulfilled domestic promises.

Enter Vladimir Putin. Blair, unlike other Western leaders, paid an obsequious visit to Yeltsin's handpicked successor before the Russian election. In a virtual campaign endorsement played up on Russia's state-owned TV, Blair bestowed pre-emptive forgiveness on the former KGB operative who had won popularity among Russians by slaughtering the pesky Chechens.

Now it's diplomatic payback time: Putin was in London on Monday to take tea with Queen Elizabeth II, courtesy of Tony Blair. The prime minister sees himself as the broker between the Russian leader who needs Western money and Blair's trans-Atlantic sidekick, Clinton, who is desperate for his own foreign-policy fix before departure.

To some, Putin's London visit will recall Mikhail Gorbachev's meeting with Margaret Thatcher, who then announced the Russian was "a man we can do business with." But Maggie had a card up her sleeve: Gorbachev had been set up. He was briefed for the London meeting by his trusted KGB station chief, Oleg Gordievsky -- who the world later learned was spying on the Russian leader for Britain's MI6.

The tables are turned today: The KGB man briefing himself is the Russian leader. He comes prepared to offer a fake concession: Now that he no longer needs an invigorating war (and indeed needs to reduce Russian casualties being inflicted by guerrillas), Putin will agree to negotiate a face-saving form of surrender by the Chechens. This will allow Blair to pose as peacemaker.

In return, Putin will get exactly what he wants from the prime minister: British pressure on Clinton not to exercise the U.S. right of withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty made three decades ago with the now-defunct Soviet Union. Putin's goal is to block any U.S. ability to deal with the threat of incoming missiles from rogue states like Iraq or North Korea.

That's why Putin came armed with his parliament's long-delayed ratification of the Start II treaty, which reduces by thousands the long-range nukes held by the United States and Russia. Start II saves Russia money -- many of its missiles are rusting anyway -- and well serves the safety of both countries. But Putin conditions his approval on Clinton's willingness to hold to the outdated ABM treaty, thereby subjecting the United States to nuclear blackmail by dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Will Blair play along with Putin to keep U.S. cities at risk? Yes. "Blair laid heavy emphasis on the importance of maintaining the ABM treaty ...," wrote Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post last week. Why? "I heard him suggest, without quite voicing, serious concern about the viability of Britain's own nuclear arsenal if the 1972 treaty is abrogated and missile defenses proliferate."

Strictly observing the interviewing rules of background, Hoagland thus reported a stunning divergence in Blair's perception of British and American strategic interests. If the United States develops a system to protect America from terrorist missiles, goes Blair's perverse notion of deterrence, it will somehow lessen the value of nuclear weapons held by Britain.

America may now have to go it alone on missile defense, as these two control freaks, sipping her majesty's tea, strike up their special relationship.

Write to columnist William Safire at The New York Times, 229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036.